Also known as: subject-matter jurisdiction · SMJ · subject matter juris.
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A court's authority to hear and decide cases of a particular type or involving a particular subject matter. This power is distinct from personal jurisdiction over the parties and must exist at the outset of the action. A court lacking this authority must dismiss the case even if the parties do not raise the issue.
Spencer Silver filed a contract suit in federal court against Southland Foods. After discovery revealed that both parties were citizens of the same state, the judge examined the record and found no other basis for federal authority. The court dismissed the entire action.
Sebastian Santos, a citizen of State A, sued Synergy Systems in federal court on a state-law claim exceeding $75,000. Santos later moved to State B. The court retained the case because diversity existed on the filing date.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sydney Santos removed a state-court tort action to federal court. Months later the district judge determined that complete diversity had never existed. The court remanded the case to state court and ordered the removing party to pay the plaintiff's costs.
Sean Steele sued Solstice Ventures in federal court asserting only state-law claims. Solstice moved under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion after finding no independent basis for federal authority over the dispute.
Sylvia Santos filed a state-law breach-of-contract claim in federal court. The complaint alleged that the defendant would raise a federal statute as a defense and therefore invoked federal-question jurisdiction. The court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.
Steven Silva, a U.S. investor, sued a foreign bank in federal court alleging securities fraud that occurred entirely abroad. The court dismissed the complaint after determining that the federal securities statutes did not reach the foreign conduct.
No. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties and may be raised by the court on its own motion at any stage of the proceedings. A judgment entered without it is void.
Diversity must exist when the suit is filed. Later changes in citizenship do not destroy jurisdiction once it has properly attached.
The district court must remand the case to state court. The remand order is generally not reviewable on appeal, though costs and attorney fees may be awarded against the removing party.
No. Federal-question jurisdiction exists only when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint shows that the claim itself arises under federal law. An anticipated defense does not supply jurisdiction.
…to provide the respondent with a pretermination hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. The District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Pp. 324-332. 2. The procedures for review and termination of disability benefits under the Social Security Act do not violate the Due Process…